13.07.2015 Views

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A-Z 383ethnolinguistics (also neo-Humboldtianism)Collective term for anthropological <strong>and</strong> linguistic investigations into the connectionsbetween language <strong>and</strong> ethnically based, sociocultural aspects <strong>of</strong> the given linguisticcommunity. Most work in ethnolinguistics can be traced to the linguistic philosophy <strong>of</strong>Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) ( energeia).ReferencesBasilius, H. 1952. Neo-Humboldtian ethnolinguistics. Word 8. 95–105.Miller, R.L. 1968. The linguistic relativity principle <strong>and</strong> Humboldtian ethnolinguistics: a history<strong>and</strong> appraisal. The Hague.ethnography <strong>of</strong> speaking, Sapir-Whorf hypothesisethnomethodological conversation analysisconversation analysisethnomethodologyAn area <strong>of</strong> research in interpretative sociology initiated by H.Garfinkel concerned withthe analysis <strong>of</strong> formal properties <strong>of</strong> practical reasoning. It investigates the activitieswhereby members <strong>of</strong> a sociocultural community produce <strong>and</strong> manage settings for theireveryday lives. These activities are considered to be identical to those which membersuse to make settings ‘accountable’ (i.e. observable, reportable, <strong>and</strong> interpretable forthemselves <strong>and</strong> others). Ethnomethodology assumes that members make sense out <strong>of</strong>their actions by interpreting them against a background <strong>of</strong> underlying patterns, i.e. theytake certain shared commonsense knowledge for granted. One way <strong>of</strong> finding out aboutsuch tacit knowledge that members rely on are ‘quasi-experiments’ designed to disruptthose patterns <strong>and</strong> induce a break in the subject’s background expectancies. For instance,some students were asked to have an acquaintance explain the meaning <strong>of</strong> an utterance:Subject (waving cheerfully to experimenter): How are you? —Experimenter: How am Iwith regard to what? My health, my finances, my school work, my peace <strong>of</strong> mind, my…?Subject (red in the face <strong>and</strong> suddenly out <strong>of</strong> control): Look, I was just trying to be polite.Frankly, I don’t give a damn how you are (Garfinkel 1967). Following Schuetz (1961–2),Garfinkel proposes a number <strong>of</strong> strategies that members use to make sense out <strong>of</strong> theiractions, such as the retrospective <strong>and</strong> prospective interpretation <strong>of</strong> activities (see also

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!